In Defense Of Reputation

Reputation, as good or influential as one may appear, can be something very fragile, unstable. While some people even base their entire career on it, a reputation can be destroyed by words. Accordingly, defamation law exists in order to compel the right to protect a reputation from being torn apart and dragged in the dirt. In the media industry, it also advocates for a better form a journalism, since without thoroughness, no journalist is immune from a libel action.

Although, journalists have secured a few defences that allow them to report on stories without the fear of being persecuted. One of those defences, commonly known as fair comment, is characterized by “a statement of opinion based on fact.” As this paper will overlook defamatory

Reporting ought to seek the truth and to fairly represent both sides of a story, while commentaries are opinions. Since it has been established that fair comment protects the expression of opinions based on facts, which is usually found in commentary, for reporters to be able to use that defence, it would have to be claimed under their personal opinions or conclusions derived from those news reports. Which ends up being contradictory, as reporters must seek impartiality. One good example illustrating the difference between a reporter and commentator can be analyzed through the reading of the WIC Radio LTD. vs Simpson court case, which report on the trial between social activist Kari Simpson against the WIC Radio Ltd. and Rafe Mair, who compared the activist with “Hitler, the Ku Klux Klan and skinheads” during a radio show debate. In the case, it is often referred to the fact that the appellant M. Mair was never a reporter, but a strongly opinionated personality figure, making him eligible to the defence of fair comment: “Mair was a radio personality with opinions on everything, not a reporter of the facts. The applicable defence was fair

As mentioned in Media Law for Canadian Journalist, “an opinion expressed with malice - in a deliberate or reckless attempt to harm someone's reputation - will not be protected as fair comment.” Malice is considered deeply unprofessional, as journalists aren't using words to cultivate and enforce a society of opinions but a mischievous one. In the Chiasson c. Fillion case where Quebec radio host Jeff Fillion, among with 3 others hosts, perpetually proclaimed defamatory statements against TV presenter Sophie Chiasson, it was impossible for the respondents to use the defence of fair comment, as those comments were judged to be malicious: “Les quatre (4) animateurs et M. Demers admettent que les propos prononcés à l'automne 2002 sont grossiers et vulgaires, qu'ils constituent des attaques personnelles et qu'ils n'auraient jamais dus être diffusés sur les ondes de CHOI-FM.” If the plaintiff can prove that the comments were an intentional attack on their dignity and honor, the fair comment defence cannot withstand. In the case of Chiasson c. Fillion, the defamatory comments were ultimately considered as sexists and diminishing for women in general, as the comments reduced them in the rank of a vulgar object. Fair comment is a defence implemented in order to respect the freedom of expression as part of a democratic society, yet “le droit de critiquer n’entraîne pas le droit de dénigrer ou de faire preuve